Why do you believe/disbelieve in God?

I don't believe because I have never seen anything that convinces me that any god exists. To take something on pure faith is to admit that it can't be taken on the merits.

I am not offended by the question.
 
I just thought of something that must be addressed before one could answer that question---Define GOD!

Depending on the answer, I could be a believer and just do not know it. For instance, I think that the Universe had a start somewhere. Does that mean God was some intelligent being wielding immense power and consciously brought the universe forth oris god the appearance of some abnormal condition in reality that led to the big bang?

Normally, when believers refer to GOD, they reference some self aware entity, why can't god be a rock, event, or just some abstract basis for philosphical understanding. In other words, why can't God be more of a concept lacking actual life like the life we have?
 
I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.

Are you offended by this question?

1. No reason to yet - though should I become convinced, I would certainly start.
It would be very comforting to know a supreme being was 'minding the store' so to speak - I just have no evidence of that at this time.

2. Not offended at all.
 
Depending on the answer, I could be a believer and just do not know it

God: (n) Pronoun: James Teunis Beukema

Do you believe in JB?


I might become a believer if we could nail him to a cross until he is clinically dead, and bring himself back.

Maybe if he raises his hands to part the Gulf of Mexico?

I would seek to make him a business partner if he can turn all the Water I give him into the finest wine.
 
I already was crucified and came back. You an read about it in my next book ;)

I will not part that gulf- too many of them are here as it is

I have declared the drinking of wine to be a sin. Only vodka or Guinness is acceptable, and I demand regular offerings of Guinness and 57 T-birds (florida plates).


Also, the Age of Miracles recently expired (sorry 'bout that) this is now the Era of Doubt, when many false prophets shall walk the Earth and your trust in me shall be tested. remain steadfast in your faith! Soon, John Frum shall return to ready the world for me and I shall rise up to be with Myself. then, all who rejected me shall be tortured for eternity while those who accepted My word shall spend eternity in servitude to me, whilst the selected of my children shall spend eternity singing in my heavenly choir...
 
Last edited:
I already was crucified and cam back. You an read about it in my next book ;)

I will not part that gulf- too many of them are here as it is

I have declared the drinking of wine to be a sin. Only vodka or Guinness is acceptable, and I demand regular offerings of Guinness and 57 T-birds (florida plates).


Also, the Age of Miracles recently expired (sorry 'bout that) this is now the Era of Doubt, when many false prophets shall walk the Earth and your trust in me shall be tested. remain steadfast in your faith! Soon, John Frum shall return to ready the world for me and I shall rise up to be with Myself. then, all who rejected me shall be tortured for eternity while those who accepted My word shall spend eternity in servitude to me, whilst the selected of my children shall spend eternity singing in m,y heavenly choir...

:lol:

Where do I sign up?!
 
I'm down.

Oh wait, except...how do you feel about, you know, drugs and murder and premarital sex and all that? That could be a deal-breaker.

Oh yeah, and when I'm spending eternity in servitude to you, will there be a stripper factory and beer volcanoes?
 
I haven’t read everyone’s post in this thread but I want to respond with my take on this. I’m a believer and there is no way to convince a non-believer to believe or expect them to even understand why I believe because my experiences are personal but has solidified my belief.

In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..

Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.

We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to, in spite of our various ways of looking at life.

Rules that make sense, like 'thou shall not kill' do not need to be carved into stone; they will stand the test of time very well on paper.

-Joe
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read everyone’s post in this thread but I want to respond with my take on this. I’m a believer and there is no way to convince a non-believer to believe or expect them to even understand why I believe because my experiences are personal but has solidified my belief.

In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..

Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.

We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.

I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.

You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?

I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?

I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Let say something is nonsensical yet some one believes in it deeply. At first you could be derisive about it and even try to convince that person that it is not true, but if it does not hurt that individual, nor is it used against you, why worry about it?

When it comes to alot of religions(not all), I really do not see the actual harm in their practice, and in some cases, the religious praxis by believers does construe some benefit to the individual or community.

This tends to make me a little critical of some atheists.. Why try to make a believer a non-believer. If Atheism is a religion, is it not the only religion that requires no believers? So what mandate or religious principle must I evoke to encourage Atheism if there are none I must uphold? Thus if some one wish to call me an apostate(I am) a Gentile(I am ) an unholy infidel(I guess I am that too!!), let it beknown, "I do not care about the sheep you fleece or the cow you milk. I doubt you know the true and all your hand waving and con jobs do not sway me!!. So let you temples shake with the voice of your codemnations, it is only when you make moves against Apostate-Gentile-Infidel Triad is when I act to actually fight you!!"



(aside--I admit, it is fun to point to child molesting Priests and thieves Pastors and say "Lo, how righteous can the religion be if their leaders seek to fleece them of their innocents and money." I only do it because it creates the embarassment in those that claim "NOTHING can happen to a believer of such and such faith because only such-and-such faith is TRUE!!!!")

Think about it.
 
Truth and Logic leads to only one plausible conclusion. What ever is responsible for creating the Universe and Life itself, it is far superior and SUPERNATURALLY existing, as nature, which fails to have the ability to comprehend its own existence in any empirical fashion can not define such as its own origin, thus man can only bend a knee and accept his place as inferior to such a cause. Be it physical or Spiritual it certainly is greater than man as indeed how can the product be greater than the total from which it was subtracted? Thus...to man IT IS GOD, and should be given the respect that it demands. As of right now man has no answers, only questions that remain incomprehensible. I simply find anyone suggesting they can define God or place limits on Him, as Pompous, as demonstrated, they cannot even define their own origins yet want to mandate what someone must accept as truth? Funny indeed.
 
Last edited:
Truth and Logic leads to only one plausible conclusion. What ever is responsible for creating the Universe and Life itself, it is far superior and SUPERNATURALLY existing, as nature, which fails to have the ability to comprehend its own existence in any empirical fashion can not define such as its own origin, thus man can only bend a knee and accept his place as inferior to such a cause. Be it physical or Spiritual it certainly is greater than man as indeed how can the product be greater than the total from which it was subtracted? Thus...to man IT IS GOD, and should be given the respect that it demands. As of right now man has no answers, only questions that remain incomprehensible. I simply find anyone suggesting they can define God or place limits on Him, as Pompous, as demonstrated, they cannot even define their own origins yet want to mandate what someone must accept as truth? Funny indeed.

There are some problems here. For instance, why must it be supernatural? What if it is actually a natural occurance that only seem supernatural due to the amount of time that seperate the events according to our peception of time?

Also, why must we bend knee to it when it may not have intelligence or even cognizant in any shape or form. What if man could such abilities--would man then become like "god" or would the realization of such knowledge be regulated to science and used to maintain our survival and benefit?

Finally, when people talk of "God", is there really a single description. Many aspects of god is dependent on the individuals definition. If we were to collect them, we could have this as a definition.


GOD (N):= the superconscious entity made of spaghetti that sent messangers to man and created the universe inside of one BIG BANG.


It maybe better to find out each persons definition as befit that individual. Once you start putting to much praise on what we try to find, we may become blinded by the praise. Thus fail to realize what is is Or what we find to be important to ourselves hidden behind such robust compliments.
 
In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..

Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.

We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.

I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.

You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?

I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?

I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.

Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.

Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...

Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?

-Joe
 
Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.

We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.

I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.

You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?

I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?

I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.

Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.

Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...

Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?

-Joe

I agree with you up to a point, that point being that people often want to base 'The Law' on their beliefs. For example, the debate on gay marriage...those who oppose it do so on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral according to their religion. So if the law were based on that religion, then gay marriage should be illegal...but now we've mixed the two. What is immoral about homosexuality outside of religion? Where is the line drawn between beliefs and "the covenant agreement we have on each other"? So many people have different sets of beliefs, which include moral codes, that it makes it difficult to come up with such an agreement outside of religion.

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm suggesting that beliefs should have to be defended is that all too often they do cause people to behave in ways that violate 'The Law'. Throughout history, people have committed hideous crimes in the name of one god or another. True, in many societies today those who commit crimes are often punished regardless of whether the motive behind them was religion; but the point is that people still commit acts which violate 'The Law' because of their religious beliefs, and yet those beliefs remain elevated above criticism or questioning.

And I'm not sure why you say people would have to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...why wouldn't the powers that be have to defend their beliefs in the first place? In a dictatorship, maybe, but that's a whole other situation. I'm suggesting that the starting point for all this is that the origin, purpose, and eventual fate of our existence is a great mystery, so anyone who thinks they know the answers to those questions should have to defend those answers, including the powers that be.
 
I do not believe in any god(s). I just haven't seen any evidence to lead me to the conclusion one exists. don't know how the universe began (assuming it did begin at all), I don't know how life first began on this planet, I don't know if there is life or intelligence elsewhere in the universe, etc. etc. I haven't been given a reason to believe anyone's particular god, or any god at all, is the answer to these questions
stuff :)

I put in bold where you wrote that you have not seen any evidence of God but then you gave a list of things you don't know how they happened. There's your evidence of God!
 
I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.

You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?

I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?

I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.

Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.

Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...

Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?

-Joe

I agree with you up to a point, that point being that people often want to base 'The Law' on their beliefs. For example, the debate on gay marriage...those who oppose it do so on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral according to their religion. So if the law were based on that religion, then gay marriage should be illegal...but now we've mixed the two. What is immoral about homosexuality outside of religion? Where is the line drawn between beliefs and "the covenant agreement we have on each other"? So many people have different sets of beliefs, which include moral codes, that it makes it difficult to come up with such an agreement outside of religion.

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm suggesting that beliefs should have to be defended is that all too often they do cause people to behave in ways that violate 'The Law'. Throughout history, people have committed hideous crimes in the name of one god or another. True, in many societies today those who commit crimes are often punished regardless of whether the motive behind them was religion; but the point is that people still commit acts which violate 'The Law' because of their religious beliefs, and yet those beliefs remain elevated above criticism or questioning.

And I'm not sure why you say people would have to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...why wouldn't the powers that be have to defend their beliefs in the first place? In a dictatorship, maybe, but that's a whole other situation. I'm suggesting that the starting point for all this is that the origin, purpose, and eventual fate of our existence is a great mystery, so anyone who thinks they know the answers to those questions should have to defend those answers, including the powers that be.

The starting point should be what the various groups can agree on. After that it is the moral obligation of the government to protect the reasonable rights of the minorities.

Slippery slope, eh?

That is why preventing the state from adopting an official religion was the first step in creating a truly free community.

Nobody said it would be easy, especially with other groups, like the economically advantaged using the fears of the majority in letting the minorities have their freedoms to wield undue political power.

Would the majority of Christians really give a shit if gays got married or not were it not for the fear used by the political right to generate a political football out of the issue by convincing some that "Church Marriage" would never be the same in YOUR church should the law be changed?

-Joe
 
In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..

Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.

We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.

I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.

You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?

I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?

I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.
That is your opinion as you even stated "Think" Also one doesn't have to follow a RELIGION to believe in GOD.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top